The 27-nation bloc said it accounts for about 11 percent of global emissions and that it can’t act alone on emissions blamed for damaging the environment.

As far as Durban goes, most the rest of the major emitters want to delay things.

The US, Russia and Japan were already arguing for a longer timeframe.

To the anger of small islands states, India and Brazil have joined rich nations in wanting to start talks on a legal deal no earlier than 2015.

—————————-

UPDATE: Durban Warning: Public Will Soon ‘Lose Confidence In This Travelling Circus’

…within hours of the summit’s start, most of the major players made clear their unwillingness to negotiate their positions.

Within the European Union grouping, which speaks at the summit with one voice, cracks were already beginning to emerge after the publication of a report suggesting the UK was backing a controversial plan by Canada to extract oil from swampland – something the EU has made clear it is against because of the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

Those watching the talks begin said it was an inauspicious start. “It is headed towards a real impasse in Durban, frankly, there is no way to gloss over it,” one veteran participant said.

—————————–

Meanwhile GWPF’s Benny Peiser lays it out in the Wall St Journal (he saw it coming back in Dec 2008*):

The 2008 Brussels summit symbolizes a turning point. The watered-down climate deal epitomizes the onset of a cooling period in Europe’s hitherto overheated climate debate. It may lead eventually to the complete abandonment of the unilateral climate agenda that has shaped Europe’s green philosophy for nearly 20 years.

Participants at last week’s United Nations climate conference in Poznan, Poland, were taken aback by a world seemingly turned upside-down. The traditional villains and heroes of the international climate narrative, the wicked U.S. and the noble European Union, had unexpectedly swapped roles. For once, it was the EU that was criticized for backpedalling on its CO2 targets while Europe’s climate nemesis, the U.S., found itself commended for electing an environmental champion as president.

The wrangle over the EU’s controversial climate package at a separate summit in Brussels wrong-footed the world’s green bureaucracy. The EU climate deal was diluted beyond recognition. Instead of standing by plans to cut CO2 emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, the actual reductions might be as trivial as 4% if all exemptions are factored in.
The Brussels summit symbolizes a turning point.

The Germans were asking the hard questions and leading other EU countries out of the mess:

At the forefront of the left-wing opposition to the EU’s climate policy has been EU Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen. The German Social Democrat has been arguing throughout the year that the climate targets should only be accepted if “truly cost-effective solutions” could be found. Other prominent dissenters in his party include Hubertus Schmoldt, the head of the mining, chemical and energy industrial union, who has recently called for a two-year postponement of the climate package.

As usual, the little developing nations are left convinced that they’ve been done in by the rich ones, and in a sense they have. They’ve been played by factions within wealthy nations, used as convenient token victims for schemes the factions wanted to set up in any case. The fear and anger of developing nations was just another tool for leverage for one class of wealthy people to use to increase their own power and influence.

If undeveloped nations seriously believe human CO2 emissions are dangerously warming the earth and will lead to catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate change, then the demands they are making at Durban are shameful.
The demands are:
1. Undeveloped nations are to be allowed to emit CO2 without constraint, and continue to grow current levels.

2. Undeveloped countries be allowed to sell permits to emit CO2 to developed countries by agreeing to do what they demand other countries do as a matter of course, reduce emissions, improve pollution controls, stop deforestation, etc.

3. Undeveloped countries are to be allowed to have companies which are currently emitting CO2 in the developed world move production to undeveloped countries where it is likely emission controls will be even less than currently required in the home developed country, thus increasing net global emissions.

4. Undeveloped nations be paid US$100 billion per year by developed countries (as a starting point), so that they can improve their renewable energy and low emission technology, which the developed nations are expected to do and pay for themselves.

5. Undeveloped countries are to be given the above money with no strings attached and no audits on how the funds are spent.

6. Undeveloped countries are to be provided renewable energy and low emission technology from developed countries at no cost.

So why are these demands shameful?

Undeveloped countries and their ‘green’ activist supporters argue that developed nations are the cause of the alleged climate change problem and so they must pay reparations to the undeveloped world, while allowing the undeveloped world to ‘catch up’ with the developed world, unrestrained by CO2 emission constraints. But this approach is faulty in so many ways.

• Assuming they believe CO2 emissions are essentially deadly, it would be immoral for them to continue to add to CO2 emissions in an unrestrained manner. It would be like demanding the end to slavery but then seeking leave to continue the practice in your country to ‘catch up’ with the benefits that free labour achieved by other countries.

• Is it fair to punish someone retrospectively? Undeveloped countries should admit that the world has only come to the conclusion CO2 emissions are supposedly leading to catastrophic climate change in relatively recent times. It is hardly fair to punish a country for doing something that was completely innocent and legal just a few years ago – retrospectively. That is not natural justice.

• But even if you think that is fair enough, then it is at least as fair to calculate and include an undeveloped country’s current and past CO2 emissions even if those emissions are created inefficiently without the benefit of industrialisation. After all human CO2 emissions will supposedly cause the climate to dangerously change whether they are from a factory chimney or a fire in a mud hut.

• Given many of the undeveloped nations are highly populated; all those emissions from cooking and heating fires are going to add up. And even though not many people own vehicles, motor bikes or tractors as a percentage of the population, many undeveloped countries are so highly populated the total CO2 emitting vehicle population, largely without any emission controls which are compulsory in developed countries, is still significant. Most often undeveloped countries’ vehicle numbers easily outnumber those in Australia. Other high CO2 emission practices in undeveloped countries include burning sugar cane or clearing forests for agriculture.

• Many undeveloped countries rely on foreign aid and importing technology, equipment and food as cheaply as possible from the industrially efficient countries which they want to now punish for being industrially efficient.

So it is not as if undeveloped countries haven’t contributed to human CO2 emissions and therefore increased the atmospheric CO2 which is alleged to be causing catastrophic climate change. It is also clear that undeveloped countries have benefited, and will continue to benefit from the industrialisation achieved by developed countries. It is shameful for those undeveloped countries to not only demand developed countries provide CO2 ‘reparations’ but it is immoral for them to also demand that they be allowed to continue emitting co2 unchecked.

The UN IPCC has not measured where all CO2 emissions come from. Their specific calculation for estimating countries CO2 emissions is simply to estimate CO2 to be released from the fossil fuels used. They do not take into account CO2 emissions from the many activities most common in undeveloped countries as mentioned above. It is not in the IPCC’s interests or the interests the climate activist NGO’s to consider this simply because they know:
a) They can’t raise guilt money from undeveloped countries to keep their gravy train going. And,
b) It would be futile to put pressure on undeveloped countries to reduce their CO2 emissions from their low tech CO2 emitting activities when their population is more concerned about where their next meal is going to come from.

It was expected that NASA would improve the worldwide monitoring of CO2 emissions by launching a satellite designed to monitor the atmospheric carbon cycle. However, like much that NASA and climate scientists have involved in, it didn’t quite work and the satellite crashed minutes after launch in early 2009, ironically into the sea near Antarctica.

Some people, like Lord Monckton claimed somewhat tongue in cheek, but with a hint of seriousness, that the crash may have been deliberate to avoid the world finding out the truth about CO2 emissions. Certainly more recent evidence would lend support to any conspiracy theorists.

“The results from the Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) show that industrialized nations appear to be absorbing the carbon dioxide emissions from the Third World. The satellite shows that levels of CO2 are typically lower in developed countries than in air over developing countries.” And the same applies to methane emissions. This outcome is unsurprising when you understand how inefficiently fuel is used in undeveloped countries.

In fact, the best action developed countries can take to assist the undeveloped countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, and therefore the world’s CO2 emissions, is to help them develop the latest coal and gas fired power generation plants, or even better, nuclear power, or of course hydro power if the rivers are adequate, and then help them reticulate that power to the population. At the same time, we would be helping lift them out of a cycle of poverty and foreign aid and we would be saving an awful lot of forests.

The worst action developed nations could take is provide undeveloped nations with yet another slush fund for those in power to plunder.

If undeveloped nations seriously believe human CO2 emissions are dangerously warming the earth and will lead to catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate change, then their demands at Durban are shameful.

I have just a two word response to these demands, and others like them, the first of which is, get … !

If any body else saw David Murray on ABC Lateline last night & listened to his measured words, they would have the impression that he would never have boarded “the burning ship”.

( & he got the economic expert treatment on national TV!)

ALI MOORE: Just a final question. This week starts the mark of a UN – or the UN, I should say, climate change talks in Durban. Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?

DAVID MURRAY: Ah, yes. A sceptic is not the word you should use when you disagree with somebody. You should say you disagree. And I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to take the sort of risks that are being taken around the world. I’ve always thought that with the global population growing as fast as it is, that there would be real pressure on energy prices and people would correct automatically by using energy much more sparingly and that would start to self-correct – if there’s a problem.

ALI MOORE: So you don’t rule out there being a problem; you’re just not convinced there’s a problem.

DAVID MURRAY: No, but with these things one looks at probability and severity. And you look for actions you can take which would reduce the severity if the problem is there. But if we’re not certain that the problem’s there, then we don’t – we shouldn’t take actions which have a high severity the other way.

ALI MOORE: What evidence do you look at to counter the other evidence that there is climate change? Is there something in particular that you focus on?

DAVID MURRAY: Well, the extremeness of the claims is one thing. For example, people talked about the ocean rising by seven metres, which is just an astounding level.

ALI MOORE: But what about the more …

DAVID MURRAY: The science talks about 20 to 30 centimetres. So these exaggerated claims. When people make a movie and get on a ladder to get to the top of the chart, that’s Hollywood, it’s not science. And when scientists start arguing amongst themselves, as we’ve seen with some of these reports, that is not good. Science is meant to be above all of that with true scientific method. So that really bothers me. And the claims are unreal and …

ALI MOORE: Are all the claims unreal?

DAVID MURRAY: Well, it’s not clear to me which comes first: temperature or carbon – carbon dioxide. I’m not sure which does come first. There is much evidence to say one way or the other. So, when I look at all this, I become extremely concerned and I become concerned at the cost of mistakes.

ALI MOORE: David Murray, I think that’s a debate for another day, but many thanks for talking to Lateline tonight.

One has to wonder just how much impact the Climategate II e-mails has had on the scene (behind the scene). Even if the major news outlets let it pass by without comment, people behind the scenes are aware and it HAS to have some effect.

Almost three years, it was one of the first things that National did upon taking office.

But the NZ ETS is nothing like the Australian one … It is nothing like the one that Kevin couldn’t implement either, which the New Zealand one was modelled on … it is a unique monster that nobody wants to play with, either locally or internationally. It is S.N.A.F.U.

Jaymez
Someone holds a mega billion package in front of you for years and years to be given to you once “consensus” is reached and then there is the threat that that consensus will never be reached since the whole theory was based on shoddy political wishes. Would you say “ah well so be it” or would you pull on the emotional strings of “do-gooders” to try and get it anyway?

The politicians need a slow way out, they have been trying to do so for a number of years. It is a bit like the oil companies increasing the price of petrol, they take turns so it is never the same one who starts with it. Same here, they take turns. Last time it was the US, this time Europe. And always in the background the likes of Russia and China who play one against the other. Great system, works well.
The issue is as dead as the proverbial duck but in our “democratic” world no elected politician will just bluntly say “It is over, we tried to deceive you for years but now we can not hide any longer”. They will slowly change opinion to not loose face, more and more reports will emerge saying that it is not as bad as thought. In 5 years everyone will think nothing of it any longer. The same scientists and willing politicos will survive to yell “the world is doomed” another day. Lets face it we are now going into the decline.
Imagine what that can do for media sound bites. We will have to stop driving cars to reduce solar heat blocking particles and so on. Same message, different reason.
The same developing nations will now want financial assistance to buy energy sources to keep their people warm. They are not drowning after all, they are freezing.
Another 20 years of UN talkfests funded by Ewen Me, this time about cooling, until the cycle changes once more. I am telling my children to get a job at the UN, they will have a job for life with regular overseas travel and talkfests. that is where the future is for the young graduates.
The power given to the UN is not likely to be given up easily by those working there, they will keep funding issues that will help their cause of global control. And that is what this all about. Control.

heard a BBC radio report last nite where they discussed whether the aviation industry should be allowed to grow! spoke about “emissions” and “pollution” but the word “carbon” was never used. guess BBC knows it’s a taboo word now:

27 Nov: Hindue Bussinessline: Despite protests, EU goes ahead with emission cap for airlines
by Richa Mishra, Ashwini Phadnis, Shishir Sinha
Gathering support
Meanwhile, at an official level, India has started canvassing with like-minded countries to ensure that the EU-ETS is not imposed. Recently at the Council of International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in Montreal, India took the lead to organise a strong group of ICAO non-EU council members to join hands to oppose EU-ETS. India’s representative to ICAO presented a working paper which was endorsed by 26 non-EU member states including China, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, Korea, Singapore and the US.
In addition, India has already sent a Demarche to EU asking that it should desist from imposing the tax. Meanwhile, airlines can, in the short-term, try to reduce their carbon footprint by buying carbon credits. Officials from the petroleum industry say that there are various methods by which the airlines can cut their bills for buying credits.
“There are a number of agencies which can advise an airline on when to buy the credits, whether buying the entire lot at one time makes good business sense and whether that decision should be taken at the beginning or the end of the year,” said an industry representative…http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/logistics/article2665494.ece?homepage=true&ref=wl_home

I’d swear there was an institute of folk devoted to churning this evocative stuff out and complex computer programmes design to juxtapose phrases next to each other for the highest impact factor. As they say: “image is everything.”

The tragedy is the diversion of effort and expense required to stop these lemmings at the cliff before they pull the entire species over the edge!

Al Gore alone is spending ~100M$ pa on PR. You can see it for instance in the sequence and timing of IPCC reports. The vocabulary of the campaign, the way a new threat emerges, dominates the media, and is submerged by the next before informed comment emerges. Their campaign is run by the finest (sic) PR minds that money can buy.

Well between Cancun and today it has become obvious to even the densest of politicians that “it’s the economy, stupid!” The great deleveraging depression (not recession this time) which I have been banging on about for the last year or two is now obvious to everyone.

There isn’t a day that goes by where Italy, Spain or Greece doesn’t feature in the press. You’ll notice that the contagion (and media coverage) is now expanded to France and Germany (who couldn’t sell all their bonds a day ago) so you know it is game over for the Eurozone.

Under these circumstances there isn’t a politician alive, other than the rusted on* Greens, that is stupid enough to push the CO2 tax angle when their economy is in the toilet.

* Perhaps “rusted on” is not the right term for hardcore Greens… how about festering ganGreen?

You and I both. I notice with cynicism that there has been almost no reporting on the Chinese VPs comments the other week regarding the “fact” that that world is heading into a global recession and the China much “Concentrate domestically”.

When people have a choice between putting bread on the table versus saving the planet due to the precautionary principle, I think the response will be a resounding “get F—–d”. We’re allready seeing even the EU start to back track now that they have found a real issue to keep the technocats occupied with.

Yep, people will choose real issues over manufactured false ones – when it affects them.

Let’s see… we got it wrong by $15 billion this year (budget deficit blow out of $15 billion, that is), but trust them, they still promise a surplus of $1.5 billion next year (trimmed down from $3.5 billion). Seriously… does anyone, reapeat ANYONE, believe that crap? Swan looks like a prize* idiot promising 3.75% growth in Australia next year when the major economies of the world are busily flushing themselves down the debt toilet. Mindbogglingly disingenuous doesn’t begin to describe it.

In a sense Swan is like the IPCC scientists… he had a policy of being in surplus next year and will get Treasury to warp the data until it fits his policy. Sound familiar?

Well you have to admit the EU financial fondue party has been a great excuse for pollies – they can say to the critical greens is the terrible EU crisis means they have to be at home to ‘look after it’.

Which is a frightening thought. But at least they’re not going to Durban, and therefore none of them will be fighting for the $100 billion/yr pollie wants a cracker fund.

28 Nov: WSJ: Devon Maylie: Climate Talks Open Amid Funding Spat .
A 2008 report by the FAO showed Uganda had five droughts from 1991 to 2000, compared with just eight in the previous 80 years.
The report also warns about more severe flooding. The FAO predicts temperatures across Africa will rise between 2% and 3% in the next 100 years.
Meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization said the five hottest years on record for the continent all occurred since 2003…http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204753404577064213425399928.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

27 Nov: News24: UN climate boss cries, thanks churches
Durban – UN climate change boss Christiana Figueres on Sunday cried when she thanked religious organisations for their contribution to fighting climate change.
“We have heard your voice and your prayers. Don’t give up, continue with your prayers,” she said with tears in her eyes…
Religious leaders said they were deeply touched by Figueres’ speech…
Ashwin Hemraju of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University said Figueres’ speech created an awakening and awareness on how important the environment is to people.
“Her speech showed that everyone has to do something to address climate change,” he said…
Organisers of the event said they were disappointed the stadium was not full, but the conference proper only starts on Monday.
Over 11,800 delegates from 194 countries have been registered by home affairs to attend the conference…http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/UN-climate-boss-cries-thanks-churches-20111127

1. A party leader who speaks the truth and is prepared to say “AGW is a scam”
2. A party leader who is brave enough during an interview with an ABC employee to say “No Mary, what you assume by that question is a devious lie based purely on a green fantasy”.
3. A federal election.
4. Some politicians with a basic education in classical science (if this is too big of an ask, I will settle for just “a basic education”).
5. The ABC and SBS to be privatized.
6. JG 7.2 to lose her seat at a federal election.
7. Criminal prosecution of the AGW scammers at CSIRO and Melbourne University.
8. The money wasted on the UN (e.g. Durban) to be spent on the provision of clean drinking water and irrigation systems for Africa.
9. Ten nuclear reactors for electricity generation in Australia.
10. My gas, electricity and petrol bills to be cut by half.

Changes and Additions:
1-4 No change
5.ABC and SBS to be closed and all employees sacked.
7.and Flim Flam and all current Government MPs and their supporting independants and Greens and other universities as well.
8.The money wasted on the UN (e.g. Durban)be spent on Australians.
9-10.Love it.
11. All climate type government departments to be closed.
12. All unions to be investigated and if found to be fraudlent, gaoled.
13. Line jumpers deported.

On number 7 as much as I hate the ALP, Greens and independents, sacking these people is not overly democratic as it results in one sidedness and a democratic society which doesn’t support all views. Having one sided arguments is reverse to what we have now in the media regarding AGW. Forcefully, cutting out opposition to one’s views about AGW is basically the same thing that the Greens (& Greens supporters) try to do to us sceptics.

Incoherent rambler – your ninth and tenth points are incompatible. If you want your electricity bill to halve, then more coal-fired generation and no so-called “renewables” would be a good start. Nuclear generation is expensive and will not do the job. As for petrol prices, the market decides the price; which in real (inflation-adjusted terms) is not high historically. Removing government excise on petroleum would help, but that would lead to profligate use of a precious resource.

Much more coal use for cheaper power generation would be my preference too. When we have closer to ten billion inhabitants a bit extra CO2, given that it’s all not going to disappear into the biosphere as the piddling amount we are producing now probably is, would help to grow extra crops to feed the two to three billion extra mouths that will be on Earth by about 2050.

28 Nov: Reuters: Can carbon for the price of a pizza save the planet?
By Jeff Coelho and Nina Chestney
Climate negotiators meeting in South Africa this week face fresh worries over saving the planet from global warming now that a tonne of carbon trades at the price of a pizza…
A European steel plant producing a ton of steel pays as little as $12 for the resulting carbon emissions, spelling trouble for Europe’s carbon emissions trading scheme, the world’s largest.
At those prices, there is little incentive for industry to lower its carbon output, meaning one of Europe’s major tools in fighting climate change is broken.
Analysts say carbon prices would need to return to 2008 levels in order start making a difference…
***”I look at the price in the morning and don’t want to get out of bed,” said a London-based emissions trader.
London is the EU carbon market’s hub, with traders, brokers, power generators and project originators responsible for the bulk of trade.
But with carbon prices down more than 50 percent since June, some have decided to cut their losses and have left the market…
The EU Commission declined to comment on current carbon prices when asked by Reuters but speaking in Brussels last Thursday, Denmark’s climate, energy and building minister Martin Lidegaard acknowledged concern.
“Carbon prices are low because there is a crisis. This is a serious problem that threatens stability for investors,” Lidegaard said, adding the Commission would be looking at ways to support prices…
“We want to see the CO2 price strengthened to give a clearer signal for EU businesses to move to a low-carbon economy,” UK energy and climate change minister Chris Huhne told Reuters.
“That will come down to the EU economy recovering and making sure we bring more ambition in terms of carbon reductions in the EU,” he said…
The EU carbon market, valued at $120 billion last year, has been caught out badly by an excess in carbon permits and credits which analysts expect to outpace demand until 2020…
Shares in clean energy project developers, including UK-based Camco International and Trading Emissions’, are among those feeling the heat.
“Some of the weaker, independent project developers could inevitably be affected at these price levels and it is likely that some of these may not survive,” said Paul Soffe, an associate director at Ecosecurities, a clean energy project developer owned by JP Morgan Chase.
Fears of economic recession have added to analysts’ pessimism in recent weeks, with Barclays Capital and Societe Generale among those downgrading their forecasts for carbon.
Gone are the hopes, held just two years ago, of a trillion dollar carbon market by 2020…
***Some are looking beyond schemes or market intervention for help as Nigel Brunel, a carbon trader from New Zealand, wrote recently in the Reuters Global Carbon Forum: “Dear Lord – please make the carbon market rally.”http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/28/us-carbon-price-idUSTRE7AR0DA20111128

What you report here seems to positively reveal the carbon-trading “industry” as purely money and profit speculators. The question of global climate issues themselves are so far in the background as to seem unimportant.
Which, in fact, they are! And always have been.
Now the ‘prop’ is being revealed as artificial, the greedy ones are beginning to cry foul.
Well, they went into this with their eyes wide open, or perhaps wide shut?

28 Nov: ABC World Today: Coral Sea marine park plan prompts fisher fury
EMILY BOURKE: Professor Terry Hughes is a coral reef expert based at James Cook University.
TERRY HUGHES: Historically the world’s greatest fisheries have always been sustained by the fact that there was always somewhere too deep, too far offshore, too dangerous, too far from the market place to sustain a fishery but now with modern fisheries technology there is nowhere left for the fish to hide.
So the obvious thing to do is to, if you like, artificially put back some of these refuges so that there is a small portion of the ocean where fish stocks can recover.
EMILY BOURKE: So this is almost like a pre-emptive protective strike, really?
TERRY HUGHES: Yes, I think it is visionary really in that it is a proactive measure before the ecosystem has been seriously degraded to keep it in good nick…
EMILY BOURKE: Stephen Murphy runs a commercial fishing business that’s been trawling for premium prawns since the late 1990s. His catch goes to the high end restaurants of Melbourne and Sydney.
STEPHEN MURPHY: Financially, yeah, well probably you could almost say probably 10 to 20 per cent loss of income I suppose. It is pretty curious really. I mean we are allowed to trawl in the Great Barrier Reef marine park which is a world heritage area and now they’ve put a marine park in the Coral Sea and they’ve banned trawling for no rational reason.
I mean if you looked at the science, if you looked at any of the rational thought I mean you could see that the activities we do out there, the trawling we do out there is completely sustainable, completely safe. It is not based on science. It is not based on common sense. It is based on keeping the Greens happy is all I can see.
EMILY BOURKE: But the Greens aren’t satisfied…
EMILY BOURKE: The Coral Sea marine reserve proposal will be open to public comment for the next three months.
But Rob Lowden’s from Seafresh Australia has little hope that the Government is open to compromise…
EMILY BOURKE: So what plans can you put in place for the future?
ROB LOWDEN: (Laughs) Perhaps early retirement.http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3378049.htm

26 Nov: WSJ: Wind Fuels Fight in Oil Patch
Oklahoma Indian Tribe Moves to Block Turbines on Land Where It Wants to Drill
By ANA CAMPOY And STEPHANIE SIMON
Wind Capital Group, the St. Louis, Mo.-based company that leased the land to set up the windmills, disagrees. “There is simply no way a project taking up less than 1.5% of a roughly 15-square-mile area will unlawfully obstruct exploration and development,” the company said in a court filing…
A trial is set for Dec. 14…
The Osage also say that oil producers interested in the “marketable amounts of oil and natural gas” the tribe has discovered underneath the wind-farm site will be scared away if the project goes forward…
Financing for it, the company said in a court filing, is contingent on a government tax credit that is only available until the end 2012.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203710704577052831852364286.html

28 Nov: AFP: US ‘concerned’ about EU airline carbon rules
Europe is facing a growing chorus of opposition, with the International Civil Aviation Organization joining US and Asian airlines in urging the EU to exclude foreign carriers from rules coming into force on January 1…
Kennard (US Ambassador to the EU) said the United States would have preferred a “multilateral” approach, earning immediate rebuke from his EU counterpart in Washington, Joao Vale de Almeida.
“We are not opposed to a multilateral solution,” said Almeida. “But we have been waiting for too long for that, we have been waiting for 15 years for the International Civil Aviation Organization to come to any sort of deal on that.”…
In 2012, airlines will have to pay for 15 percent of the polluting rights accorded to them, the figure rising to 18 percent in the period 2013-2020.
The US House of Representatives weighed in last month, passing a bill directing the US government to forbid US carriers to take part “in any emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by the European Union.”http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwd7xML0PhFOnNdNbuc111guQJjw?docId=CNG.498d25fcae291f63aa8020e2e770ecda.8c1

28 Nov: BusinessDay South Africa: Looyiso Langeni: Cost of SA exports to rise on EU shipping tax
Expert warns that exports to the European Union are set to become more expensive when proposals to introduce a shipping tax next year are adopted by the bloc
SA’s free-trade deal with the EU has resulted in tariffs being removed on 98% of SA’s goods exported to the EU. In return, SA is expected to do away with tariffs on 86% of EU imports by next year…
The Pretoria-based state agency, the South African Maritime Safety Authority, indicates that merchandise trade accounts for half of SA’s gross domestic product and that 98% of this trade is conducted by sea.
SA is one of 21 countries that are already at loggerheads with the EU on an aviation tax to become effective on January 1…
Roeland van de Geer, the EU’s envoy to SA, said on Friday shipping and aviation contributed “significantly” to carbon emissions, which the bloc wanted to limit.
“That is why we are quite persistent that a shipping and aviation tax must be included in any deal that hopes to limit carbon emissions.” …http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=159741

These Leaders are very sophisticated at playing the system that allows them to retire to the UN or less Undeveloped countries.

The state of development of the undeveloped nations will not change during this activity but the leaders who have heroically staved off heat and ocean will be living in a well deserved paradise; somewhere else.

The Kyoto Protocol is failing now, and the main cause is that original Kyoto Protocol itself.

We would like to think that ‘Science’ has brought it down, but it was really two other subjects, English and Maths.

In 1997 when it first came in, not many people knew of the implications. It was all warm and fuzzy, and idealistic, but no one really knew what it would lead to.

It called for a cut in CO2 emissions to a level 5% less that what those CO2 emissions were in 1990, something that (at that time) the thinking was that it could be done.

In all, 192 Countries signed up their first signature to the Protocol, every Nation on Earth, but that first signature was like a ‘roll call’ at school, signifying that you were present.

The most important part was that second signature, and that meant your Country was ‘bound’ to do what was called for, and now, after Rudd signed in Bali, that then left the U.S. as the only Country not to add that all important second signature, something voted down in the U.S. Senate, and voted down, (with Clinton as President and Al Gore as his VP) by a margin of 95-0, not even one vote.

Those 192 Countries were then ‘split’ into 2 Annexes, basically the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’.

40 Countries were on the ‘Haves’ side, and 152 on the ‘Have not’ side.

Of those 40 First World Countries, 23 of them were then culled, and here’s where the English part comes in.

A small italicised and bracketed 10 word phrase was added after the list of those 23 Countries.

(Developed Countries which pay for all costs of developing Countries)

Still, (at that time) it was warm and fuzzy, because, again, no one really knew the implications, because, really, how much CO2 can there be, and it must be relatively easy to cut back by that small amount, something no Country on Planet Earth has achieved to this day.

As the years went by, the realisation of the whole thing started to sink in, (on a widespread level) and people came to the realisation of what those implications might be, something that is still only slowly sinking in.

Then, Maths took over, and people started to see that this was Maths in the proportions of ‘powers of ten’ to the 9th and 12th power.

From the Maths came the money, and from the Maths, it then went back to the English, and those ten fateful words.

Now, with 152 Countries needing to do no more than report their emissions, and on top of that those 23 Countries also had to pay ALL their costs, those 152 Countries had no reason to want to change that, and in fact to fight tooth and nail against any changes.

Those 23 Countries now saw how much it was going to cost them, both at home and externally, as well, and they wanted (ostensibly) a shiny new agreement they could boast about politically at home, but something that watered down those ten words.

Kyoto WAS a legally binding document that they ALL signed up to, and the 152 were going to stand by that no matter what, thus tying the hands of the 23, and any vote at the UNFCCC to change Kyoto, well, er, you look at the numbers.

Copenhagen was the big meeting to bring in a replacement, and that failed, well, miserably failed.

Cancun, same same, and now Durban, where it will also be same same, no matter what warm and fuzzy release comes out at the end of it.

So, what is the need to find any replacement for Kyoto?

Well, you see, Kyoto has a ‘sunset’ clause, 2012, when Kyoto expires, because after all in 1997 when they introduced it, all warm and fuzzy, the expectation was that there would easily be a replacement for it, after all, that meant 15 years of Kyoto.

NOW, every one of those original 192 Countries KNOWS what Kyoto means, they know the English, they know the Maths, and they (think they) know the Science.

The Science is being used to prop up the Maths, and all they want changed is the English.

I mentioned that the Maths led to the money, which (don’t mention the War money. I did once, but I think I got away with it) is an absolutely astronomical amount, and only expected to get bigger.

(Literally) Trillions have been spent.

CO2 emissions have risen, not fallen, let alone back to levels 5% lower than what they were in 1990.

(Literally) Trillions have been spent on the introduction of huge amounts of renewable Power, which still has barely reached 2% of Worldwide power consumption.

People now know (some of) the implications of what Kyoto actually means, but now there are Rivers of money to protect, so they just have to pursue the ‘Science’ to protect that money.

As I have said all along, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Environment.

It’s just about the money.

Countries will jump off the sinking ship that is Kyoto, and there will never be anything like that again. (now that they know what it really means)

Tony – when we say ‘expires in 2012′ are we talking about in 31 days time, or in 31 + 365 days time?

Precisely when does Kyoto become null and void?

Also – this is where my understanding falls a bit – does the EU trading market require Kyoto to function? The implication here is the forthcoming dissolving of Kyoto means certain collapse for worldwide trading.

What I can’t fathom is why none of the media ever even asked the government how they are going to trade carbon credits post-2015 if there is no global market left. Surely even the Truly Concerned Journalists ™ would be worried that the ETS will be a giant failure because of a lack of an actual market?

But it was always going to be thus – putting in a price floor guarantees oversupply of anything in the same way a price ceiling creates a shortage, carbon credits included. The ‘market’ is destined for collapse either way because idiots who aren’t fit to shine Adam Smiths shoes still don’t realise you can’t force a market into being.

I am not sure when Kyoto ends, but I do know that the EU system is unrelated. Because of this, there have been a number of scams involving moving monies between the two schemes to create bogus credits. Literally making money out of nothing.

Our interest has been in studying the use of the combined schemes for money laundering. Quite a nice little earner if you knew what you were doing.

Canada has dodged a few green bullets over the years.I dearly hope this vampire hypothesis finally dies the death it truly merits.But hundreds of stakes have been driven into it, and still it shuffles on.I hope you folks in Australia find a away to ditch the carbon tax without too much pain.BritInMontreal thank you for your kind words.Jaymez a recent Japanese study claims that the poorer nations are in fact the worse co2 offenders.

Just had quick look at the Guardian “Environment” page for the first for a long time. If the number of comments on the articles about Durban are any gauge then the “cause” is on it’s last legs.
I am sure it will take sometime to unravel completely but it looks like the economic and political “ducks” are lined up ready to push it over the tipping point.

29 Nov: UK Telegraph: Durban Climate Change Conference 2011 opens in disarray
The United Nations climate change summit opened in disarray after violent storms, the late arrival of the host president and a major rift emerging between some of the world’s biggest polluters.
By Aislinn Laing, Durban and Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Artur Runge-Metzger, the EU’s negotiator at the summit, said both developing and developed countries had to make firm commitments to emissions caps this year or risk the public “losing confidence in this travelling circus”…
Canada has already said it will not commit to a second term and yesterday it emerged that it could withdraw before the original deal expires. The country’s national broadcaster said it would be announced next month that Canada will withdraw from the protocol – a move its Green Party warned would make it a “global pariah” at Durban.
Within the European Union grouping, which speaks at the summit with one voice, cracks were already beginning to emerge after the publication of a report suggesting the UK was backing a controversial plan by Canada to extract oil from swampland – something the EU has made clear it is against because of the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
Those watching the talks begin said it was an inauspicious start…http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8921491/Durban-Climate-Change-Conference-2011-opens-in-disarray.html

I’d swear there was an institute of folk devoted to churning this evocative stuff out …

There are several. Probably the most well known is Satchi and Satchi. These organisations are funded by groups like the Tides Centre, which gets its money from the Tides Foundation, which in turn gets its money from the “established fortunes” in the US. US law requires these “established fortunes” to donate at least 5% of their after tax worth to charity. So the money gets “donated’ into a pipeline that creates investment opportunities that allow the donors (and other in the know) to profit from their “donation”.

You might think that this was legal money laundering, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Sounds a bit grand conspiracy-esque. Those that donate surely don’t all uniformly come from similar political, environmental and social orientated concerns ensuring there is a ‘preferred’ beneficiary of the largesse?

Anyway, back in never never land I posted a recent exchange #40. It attests to the ‘official’ position of our PhD (engineering) climate change minister and his government. Like ‘Yes Minister’ this response is possibly quite a nice example of rambling civil servant obfuscation signed off by the elected Minister, our esteemed, democratically elected servant and guardian of the country.

Some reasons why not (by no means an exhaustive list)-
1. The IPCC, UEA, the “team” are regarded as authorative scientists by journalists. Those emails have just been invented by the oil companies.
2. Physicists, mathematicians, chemists, engineers do not count, they are not climate scientists.
3. AGW is an article of progressive faith. You can’t tell someone of faith that their god does not exist.
4. MSM make money from AGW hysteria.
5. MSM would look very gullible.
6. MSM reporting of the facts would shatter the political left in the western world.
7. Low deductive reasoning capabilities of the average journalist.
8. Low standard of (science) education of the average journalist.
9. Sceptics are “contrarian”. Anyone who does not believe is paid by oil or tobacco companies.
10. Cognitive dissonance.
11. Refusal to accept the rules put in place by Feynman and Einstein.
i.e. if observations do not support the theory, then the theory is wrong.
12. Goebellian style propaganda (say it often enough people will believe).

I finish with a quote from Michio Kaku:
“No matter how elegant or beautiful a theory may appear, it is doomed if it disagrees with reality.“

I finish with a quote from Michio Kaku:
“No matter how elegant or beautiful a theory may appear, it is doomed if it disagrees with reality.

“

But…but…how can reality disagree with climate science? After all, isn’t the science settled and isn’t there an overwhelming consensuses of climate scientists that mankind is doomed if it doesn’t stop acting like it wants to live and thrive? Post modern science DECREES that reality will follow the dictates of scientists so if the scientists believe it, it is settled. There is no point in even questioning it. Bad is good. Black is white. Slavery is freedom. Poverty is wealth. Two plus two equals seventeen on alternate Tuesdays.

Oh, there is one very tiny and likely insignificant problem. The climate scientists forgot to ask reality permission to dictate to it what it is. For some reason totally unknown to them, reality stubbornly continues to be what it is without regard to what they say it is. The scientists are perplexed about that but reality isn’t. Reality knew that it was what it was from the beginning and didn’t give a damn what the scientists thought. Aside from the fact the wannabe dictators of the earth are using the claims of the climate scientists as a justification for robbing us blind while they enslave us, why should we?

I am not one bit into conspiracy theories, but I would like to know the following:
If the world is so easily mislead by a theory which does not pass a simple common sense test, and which should fall apart if one just were to bother to look out of the window, but yet so resilient, what other frauds are out there which might be more tricky to expose, which cannot be tested against reality so readily like the AGW lunacy?

I thought that was it…Roosevelt knew about the attack and did nothing so he’d have an excuse to enter the war. This has been around since the war and it doesn’t fly. As we’re so fond of demanding around here — where is the evidence? I’ve seen the accusation over and over but never anything to support it.

The real tragedy of that Sunday morning is that the incoming aircraft were spotted while still a long way out by an experimental radar installation on the northwest corner of Oahu. The sighting was reported to Hickam where the OD (Officer of the Day) knew nothing about radar and wouldn’t believe the report. Had the OD taken it seriously and given the alarm, Pearl and Hickam would have had at least 15 minutes warning and the outcome might have been quite different.

I will suppose that 9/11 is on the list because, “Bush caused it.” This is another one without any support. And 9/11 is recent so all the supposed evidence is on the Internet for all to see. Please, it falls apart from its own dead weight.

What i find most fascinating about the AGW debate is that many people do not believe in AGW but still believe in fantasies such as God, governments are generally good things and yes there is a boogy man which is why we need to continue to be vigilant and take away your civil rights. No wonder Cat, JB et al get so frustrated with you lot.

GREAT MOMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE FBI. ”

[Your information is] too precise, too complete to be believed. The questionnaire plus the other information you brought spell out in detail exactly where, when, how, and by whom we are to be attacked. If anything, it sounds like a trap.”

FBI response to the top British spy, Dusko Popov (code named “Tricycle”) on August 10, 1941, dismissing Popov’s report of the complete Japanese plan for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor: The Verdict Of History by Gordon Prange, appendix 7 published in 1986. Based on records from the JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Nov 15, 1945 to May 31, 1946

I love the ‘Occupy Durban’ crowd.
My bother, a South African attorney, was part of a practice based in the Durban CBD. They broke up the practice, each of them moving to the suburbs, or further out, because of the risks of mugging, hijacking, theft of cars, break-ins &c. got too high(would you believe daily?!). That cost them a lot of money (I can enumerate the reasons – at length).
And then there’s the SA Police Service to deal with. Not your average Bobby.
Occupy, by all means.
At your own risk.

One day, quite recently, in the land of the long white cloud, fables, gollum and hobbits, and Minister of Climate Change, the following paraphrased exchange took place. It testifies to the view of the recently elected administration. Only – as they say – in never never land is this possible!

It began…..

“I asked whether the Minister would provide empirical data and evidence that confirms the basis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), confirms an agreed value for climate sensitivity, and defines the feedback role of clouds, and the role of the sun, beyond the usual and hypothetical ‘modeled’ data of the IPCC. In so doing, he would go some way in explaining his view that [sic] “justify the action.” Perhaps the Minister might explain his wedded adhesion to modeled data?”

“It is clear that the science is very far from ‘settled’ and that AGW remains a fraudulent idea without evidence based on thoroughly debunked research (McKittrick and McIntyre). Furthermore, Mann et al. have sought to eradicate the Medieval Warm Period in order to further imply that the warming seen up to 1998 is unusual. In point of fact it is not. Maybe the Minister is better acquainted with the wider science that suggests an entirely different view of cause?”

The exalted magician responded from the towers:

“The Government bases its climate change policies on multiple sources of peer reviewed science, both from empirical studies as well as from modeling. This includes information produced by NASA, universities and research institutes from around the globe and the research from within New Zealand. The research from these institutions includes empirical information on the currently observed changes in average temperature, sea level rise, ice melting and changes in the nature such as the timing of bud-burst. Information from computer modeling is also of value, particularly when it is validated against past climates. The models show that only when the effect of greenhouse gases is included can we explain the temperature changes seen over the last century. While including effects like solar cycles and volcanic eruptions improve the fit to the observed temperature changes, on their own they do not explain the increase.”

“These multiple lines of scientific evidence show that climate change is happening and, human kind emissions of green house gases are very likely the cause. Research also shows that, unless action is taken reduce the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we are likely to experience significant changes to our climate.”

The Ministerial response was clearly written by quite a lowly hobbit, but there it is, the confirmed “official” view utilising all the logical fallacies in the book.

Not sure to weep or laugh. Will endeavour to work-up enough enthusiasm to generate a response, although it is clear this is utterly pointless.
Any thoughts, anyone?

I think Cop 17 is a con, and nothing will be solved.
If the big five don’t sign on for an extension, it is a lost cause. Of course the undeveloped countries will want them to sign, so they can sell the permits.
Valueless right now I believe.

I wonder how much this cost us? In time,space and expenses. For what outcome. We agree to disagree.
Another Cancun I wonder what Lord Monckton thinks of this.

I think the small island nations have been taken for a ride by those more wealthy who “promised” to help them avoid being submerged by rising seas.

This was simply a politically contrived statement to help ensure that the world would agree to a carbon dioxide tax which would give all of these governments more power over their citizens – simply the usual political ploy of finding a “problem” and then appearing as a white knight in shining armour to rescue all of its citizens with policies which would actually, and only, put more money in the pockets of the governments and its politicians.